The 20% building
density increase and
its side effects

What is odd, is that the Members of the Planning Board,
which is represented by civil servants from all sorts of
background (Ministers of Agriculture, Finance etc) who have
no clue on the subject they are there “the supreme body”
taking decisions on the building industry, whereas we note
the advisor of the Government in technical matters (ETEK) is
runned again by Governmental employees.

This Government, a few months ago, in order to introduce a
simple procedure to cover illegalities relating to the
building extent and referring to houses/apts, has introduced
a new regulation which allows the owners/buyers to increase
the building density prevailing at the time of construction
by 20% or up to a minimum of 60 sq. mts (applications are
accepted if submitted by the 31.12.2019).

This is indeed a good measure and what is more important to
note is that owners/buyers may apply for the increased
density and planning application without going through the
developer/registered owner or the other co-owners and
neighbours. This is on the one hand good since the owners
are not held to ransom by the developer/ registered owner
etc. On the other hand the planning authority has no
information whether the project and other buyers have an
objection. As such we have the case where one house built
another floor blocking the views of the property at the
rear, whereas another carried out an extension to the living
room, blocking the living room (terraced units) of the
neighbour. This cannot be correct and whereas one project is
developed with certain parameters, it takes a few people to
spoil it. This creates problems mainly for the neighbours but
for others as well who are in the immediate vicinity.

A difficult situation to solve but in our opinion the
planning authority should ask the neighbours and the
registered owners/investors on their reaction on the
application for extension – not necessarily to take them
into account, but to bear in mind on its decision. In
addition apartment buildings have all sorts of odd
aesthetics in terms of appearance with several floor
verandahs being covered and used as living space, whereas
the addition of bedrooms increase the number of residents to
the extent in some cases, that the common services provided
cannot cope (lift, parking etc). Obviously there is no easy
solution and the covering up of illegalities is a good
measure to an extent. That has been adopted in other
countries, such as Italy, Spain, Greece etc with each
country adopting its own methodology of application. We do
suggest that those who want to take advantage of this
“opportunity” must pay a visit to the local Planning Office,
in order to ascertain exactly what they can benefit. In the
past this measure was allowed subject to compensation paid
to the local authority but having said that this similar
system was not successful due to the elongated time required
and of course the cost. Now the situation is quite different
but the “free for all” benefit goes to the other extreme.

We use usually the U.K. as an example for correct procedures
and we note that in a country which is strict in getting a
permit, it is but most laxed and understanding during
execution and title issue. If our authorities were more
efficient in the replies and not being so one sided and
narrow-minded in most occasions, we could have address this
situation more efficiently and to the benefit of all (neighbours
included).

In this country with our limited building industry history
which does not follow the market changes/requirements, it is
correct that we follow the various “advanced” European
countries, but by adopting them absolutely we forget that
the civil service of those countries have a different
attitude and care.

The recent change of the building law regarding the
verandahs (covered) not to measure in the building density,
have increased from 20% to 25% of the size of the unit and
this is good news, but then, our suggestion to increase the
corridor width not to measure in the building density say up
to 2.0 mts. width (so that two people can by-pass each other
in the corridor invalid in addition) has not been adopted.
We wonder why is this, when in the other European countries,
the width of a common corridor is not an issue.

What is odd, is that the Members of the Planning Board,
which is represented by civil servants from all sorts of
background (Ministers of Agriculture, Finance etc) who have
no clue on the subject they are there “the supreme body”
taking decisions on the building industry, whereas we note
the advisor of the Government in technical matters (ETEK) is
runned again by Governmental employees.

We are getting better and improving but not with the speed
that it is required leaving us, again, behind of market
conditions and demand.